NEGLIGENT DRIVING. 287 



m not screening tlie railway from the roadway leading to 

 the station, and that such negligence had caused the acci- 

 dent. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the defen- 

 dants -were not liable, as there was no evidence of any 

 obligation on their part to screen the railway from the 

 road (w). 



Where damage has been caused by collision, there may Rules as to 

 be negligence on one side oiili/ (o) ; or negligence on both "'"' liability. 

 sides Ip). Both parties may he to blame (q) ; or it may be 

 altogether an accident (r). The following rules, which 

 appear fully borne out by the cases hereafter quoted, will 

 fix the liabilities of the parties concerned, under whatever 

 circumstances the damage may be inflicted. 



1st. If a party who is taking reasonable and projxr care 

 receives damage in consequence of a horse or carriage he 

 encounters being negligently managed, the person who 

 has the control over such horse or carriage is answerable. 



2nd. Where damage is not the necesmry consequence of 

 a particular wrongful act, tbe person sustaining damage, 

 though a wrongdoer, may recover against the person 

 causing it, if it be shown that with ordinary care on the 

 part of the latter, the injury might have been avoided. 



3rd. But where one party by his improper conduct makes it 

 impossible for the other party, who is also acting improperly, 

 to avoid doing him damage, the person inflicting the in- 

 jury is not liable, because the negligence of both parties 

 concurs in producing it. 



4th. Where damage is the consequence of pure accident, 

 neither party is answerable. 



In the following case the jury found for the plaintiff, Negligence on 

 being of opinion that there was negligence on the side of ""^ *'* "^^2/- 

 the defendant only. It appeared that between seven and 

 eight o'clock on the evening of the 30th of November, 

 the plaintiff, who was a female servant, was intending to 

 cross High Street, Aldgate, and was stepping off the 

 curbstone for that purpose, .when a cabriolet, which came 

 up at a pace of nine or ten miles an hour, struck against 

 her and knocked her down, by which she was injured. In 

 summing up, Mr. Justice Coleridge said, " If the plaintiff 



[n] Simkin v. London and North {p) Negligence on both sides, post, 



Western Sail. Co., 21 Q. B. D. 453 ; p. 289. 



59 L. J., Q. B. 797 ; 53 J. P. 85. (q) Both parties to blame, post, 



See also Mamsden v. Lancashire and p. 298. 

 Yorkshire Rail. Co., 53 J. P. 183. (r) Altogether an accident, post, 



(o) Negligence on one side only, p. 300. 

 infra. 



